Cibachrome / Ilfochrome

<p>Hi, I am trying to get information on Cibachrome prints. I was under the impression that it is no longer available.<br>

<br />Two weeks back, I came across a post in Traditional film photography facebook group that there were a few people in France, who still print it.<br>

Is Cibachrome really gone? How closely does it resemble the projected slide ?</p>

<p>Thanks in advance.</p>

<p>Sanjay,</p>

<p>I don't know if Ilfochrome paper and chemistry are still available. Back when it was I printed slides with it. The process was a little tricky to control contrast. Often I would have to make a contrast mask (black & white negative dupe of the slide). However, all the effort is worth the final print. The polyester base gives the print a three dimensional quality, and colors really pop. For me Kodachrome film worked best, but I have printed off of most E6 films.</p>

<p>I would be interested if it is still available as well.</p>

<p><em>A long time ago, in a galaxy far away (just a few days ago, "May the Fourth be with you")</em></p>

<p>I used Cibachrome. I recall that it was in fact pretty close to the slides I used with it, and that it was more stable than other color print technology at the time. So many years later, I no longer have access to those prints to see how they have held up.</p>

<p>I liked it then, but nowadays, I'd much rather scan and print on a pigment-ink printer.</p>

<p>Lightjet printers are far and above any inkjet print. Lightjet picks up, where Cibachrome left off. With the right scan, through Heidelberg Tango scanners, and printed lightjet, Voila, your there. Why? Continuous tone, and the widest color gamut available.<br /> See: http://www.westcoastimaging.com/<a href="/bboard/westcoastimaging.com"><br /></a></p>

<p>As the Wikipedia article on "LightJet" says</p>

<blockquote>

<p>This article appears to be written like an advertisement. Please help improve it by rewriting promotional content from a neutral point of view and removing any inappropriate external links.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'd still bet on pigment inks for <em>closer</em> to archival utility. Ultimately you need color separation for actual archival quality.<br /><br>

<br>

For another way of doing this see <br>

http://www.instructables.com/id/Tri-color-gum-bichromate-prints-from-digital-image/<br /></p>

<p>AFAIK, Cibachrome / Ilfochrome materials have not been made in years, so anyone who still has any with which to make new prints is using old stock. It may work fine--or not--I don't know.</p>

<p>One currently-available alternative that you may like is Fuji Supergloss. The overall effect is arguably somewhat similar. Try it! I find it nice for some subjects.</p>

<p>As for Lightjet versus inkjet: a Lightjet is just a way to expose paper. It might expose regular Kodak or Fuji or whatever RA-4-process paper, or it might expose Fuji Supergloss, or it might even expose traditional-style silver-halide black and white paper. Inkjets have advantages and disadvantages, but can be <em>very</em> good for some purposes. For example, I suspect some inkjets have wider color gamuts than any photosensitive system. On the other hand, I'd be quite surprised if any inkjet can give the same effect that Fuji Supergloss does.</p>

 

<p>Right. Lightjet on Fuji Supergloss. Haven't seen anything presently better yet, and have seen the side by side comparisons from the same image same feed.</p>

<p>According to their Web site, Laumont Studio in NYC is still doing Cibachrome/Ilfochrome prints; depending on the size, one print runs around $55-$75. Check it out, http://www.laumont.com/services/Printing.html</p>

<p>Too rich for my blood.</p>

<p>As Dave Redmann says, the materials for Ilfochrome/Cibachrome haven't been made for years. Personally I found it a pain. For every good print I saw or received there were others that looked awful and for the home user, the battles with filtration to avoid colour casts were legion. And then if your slide was especially contrasty the standard process didn't cope well and you needed to produce (or have produced) contrast masks which were labour intensive and became practically speaking unobtainable commercially. </p>

<p>Mostly you'll find it hard to tell much difference between a LightJet/Chromira (as far as I know West Coast Imaging use a Chromira) and an inkjet these days with their vastly improved inks. There's probably more difference in the paper you choose for either than between the results from the different processes on similar papers. In short, the processes may be different, the results don't have to be, though its easier to get a really glossy paper for a LightJet/Chromira or Lambda than from inkjets if that's what you're after. Personally I find the very glossy papers such as Fujiflex on a Lightjet to produce prints that are just too much- too bright, unnatural. But of course that's just my taste. </p>

Ilfochrome was officially discontinued in september 2011, some stock is still available I suppose because the lab I use still can obtain it,

but only in limited format. For mybtaste the result was way better than any other process I have seen, the only that can render the

sensation of the original slide (if correctly printed as already stated). Unfortunatly it is gone, I'm looking for a substitute too, in the mean

time I have bought an Hasselblad flextighot 646 scanner and now I have to learn the digital process, way too much difficult in

compariswon than drop the slide to the lab and receive an ilfocchrome prints a couple of day later. And please, don't tell me I can do the

same but with hibrid process, at least in my city (Milano, Italy), all the pro lab I tried returned me prints that let me unsatisfied.

<p>Diego- you're right about the hybrid process. For some years after R Types went, I sent slides 6000 miles to West Coast Imaging in California- then one of the few credible labs with a hybrid process in place, set up to meet the needs of the Western USA landscape photography community. I always got a proof. Sometimes those proofs resulted in alterations, some simple some not so. Each one of those proofs cost me , and incurred time for production and transport. The prints were great, but it took a long time and a very high price to achieve it.</p>

<p>So the conclusion I reached years ago was that I had to get quality scans and make the files here on a calibrated screen and soft proof these using the profiles for the papers I chose for the final print. That process works for me and I now get good prints made in London where I ftp the completed files; getting back the finished prints after two days. They are incredibly cheap relative to what I used to pay a decade or more ago for R Types , or sending slides overseas for Chromiras, or previously,for LightJets. I chose not to own the scanner- but to buy in Imacon scans as I needed them, and use a flatbed for less demanding applications.</p>

I used to shoot 8x10 Ektachrome sheet film in a large format camera. I tried contact printing the sheet film directly onto Cibachrome. The resuts were good. I liked the unique look of Cibachrome paper. As said the results were often more contrasty than the slide itself.<P>.<P>

 

 

<center><img src="http://jdainis.com/park642.jpg"><BR>

Cibachrome print copied on flat bed scanner.<P>.<P>

 

 

<img src="http://jdainis.com/park400.jpg"><BR>

Lower left section of the 8x10 slide photographed on a light box.</center>

<p>Cibachrome paper is still available so are the chemicals but they are extremely hard to find.</p>

<p>I have also heard similar comments of Supergloss through lightjet seeming unnatural, but transparency film on the light table could also convey unnaturalness. I continue to be enthralled with chromes on the light table, and to me Supergloss via Lightjet is as close to the look of chrome on the light table I've seen yet.</p>

<p>IN USA you can get close to CIBACHROME, Fuji Super gloss paper with RA4 chemistry(inkjet is also available but i like RA4 chromira chemistry), it has a polyester base and it gets three dimensional look to it.<br>

West Coast imaging and Aspen creek are two labs i know are the best. West coast charge premium and Aspen creek is their economy division but they are equally good.<br>

Top photographer use this and in galleries you will see this paper.</p>

<p>Regards,<br>

Sunil</p>

<p>From what I remember the only proprietary chemical was the bleach. The developer is standard paper developer (indeed there were various home brews aimed at reducing contrast) I also used standard paper fixer.</p>

<p>Thanks for all the information. I checked with the person who had posted in the Facebook group about the French printer and he shared the following site :<br>

http://www.rolanddufau.com/en/index.php</p>

<p>I was working for Ilford before they got bankrupt and I can tell the last batch of Ilfochrome was produced in Summer 2012 and is technically in perfect shape until 2016.<br>

There is still some original stock available in Switzerland and capacities for chemistry production, the company who sells it is now called Marly Innovation Center.</p>

<p>Although this thread is now ancient history I have to add a very simple and overlooked fact….Ilford Cibachrome/Ilfochrome was a B+W paper. I would make my own developer...a two part developer(farmers/beers? I can't remember but it was two part) that would allow me to vary the contrast from print to print by varying the amount of A and B solutions. I'd use the standard Ilford bleach(one min longer than the advised three for cleaner whites) and then fix in standard B+W rapid fixer. Wash as standard, Voila! I had prints that matched the chromes to the Nth degree.</p>

<p>For some reason when the contrast of the developer dropped the color swings became somewhat tame and easier to control, paper speed went up too. All in all though its a great paper but was expensive as hell and rejects became painful. </p>